Existence and my subjectivity

An excerpt of a talk I gave for a seminar in Existentialism in
1993.

I have consciously dealt with the issue of my subjectivity long before
I was aware of the meaning of the word. From the time I made the
choice to not believe in God's existence (and emphasise my own) to
the present, where I attempt to lead a truly subjective life in this
institutionalised world, I define my existence through my
subjectivity.

Before this class, I always assumed that Existentialism dealt with
the question "Do we exist?" rather than "How do we exist?" I have
learnt that they are the same. I do not believe there is an intrinsic
meaning to our existence and I believe that any meaning we ascribe to
it is artificial. In other words, our existence is defined by how we
exist, a so-called meta-philosophy or meta-existence. Different
philosophers have different notion on the meaning of existence, but to
truly exist, you should be able to define your existence and exist
within that definition. It would behoove us to choose a broad
definition, and that is why existentialists choose realms such as
freedom, anarchy, and, in my case, subjectivity. The spheres of
transcendence are all related. There is always anarchy involved when
you do not let yourself be objectified. What you achieve, then, is
freedom from objectification.

I have lived this philosophy since I was seven. That moment, I consciously chose not to believe in God
and I have not set foot in a place of worship for the purpose of
prayer nor have I prayed. The only God to me after that time has been
myself.

Clearly, I resent being objectified and I take great pains to make
sure I am not. It does not matter if my denial or expression of
subjectivity is made public. What matters is that I do what I wish. I
do not belong to any organisation on this campus. I do not consider
myself a Member of The Senior Class of 1993; I just happened to
graduate that year. I will not become a Ohio Wesleyan Alumnus; I will
be someone who has studied at Ohio Wesleyan. I was born in a
particular geographic region of the world, yet I do not consider
myself to be of any particular nationality. I am not a member of
society; my actions are solely based on Marginal Cost versus Marginal
Benefit analyses (in other words, every action I take I evaluate with
my own ethical framework without even remotely considering society's
views). To take things to the extreme, I do not consider myself a
part of the race that is Humankind; I am a subjective individual and
nothing more.

The issue of classification is important. I amHomo
sapiens. I am a mammal. I do not belong. This applies to
all kinds of classifications. This distinction is important because it
signifies that I have made a subjective choice (explicitly or
implicitly) that allows for this classification. This is different
from, say, being a member of an organisation or group. I am a hacker
because of my love for computers (i.e., it's an activity I perform,
like running or climbing or skydiving) but I am not a member of The
Association of Hackers (or Runners or Climbers or Skydivers). What
this means is that when you belong to a group, your subjectivity, in
part at least, is taken away. Groups, I believe, achieve no purpose
that cannot be achieved singularly. A collaborative effort is
different. The Internet, for instance, is this world-wide network
which runs perfectly without any central organisation but with a
number of people cooperating. They all make their choices and perform
actions; they do not have any sort of responsibility or power.

It is mostly society that objectifies you. The graduation
ceremony, for example, makes you wear long black gowns so you can
swelter in the hot sun. When you do wear such a thing, then your
subjectivity is taken away. It is a choice as to whether you want to
wear it. You can still receive the
diploma in a T-shirt if you wish (as I plan to do). You will
still graduate; there is no reason to wear it except for some
tradition that has no meaning to you. The GRUB Pub recently introduced
this menu system where they gave you a Customer Number. Now you see
the "Number" blackened out. I spoke to the manager of the Pub and
told him that assigning numbers to me took away my subjectivity.
Apparently a few others thought so too, but no one really spoke to him
about it. The issue really was that you were given a number that did
not represent your identity.

I believe that expressing your subjectivity is what defines existence
and the true way to exist. Denial, the appropriation of truth, and
the will to power, is what will let us be completely subjective, not
philosophising about Existence. If the whole population did such a
thing, it will undoubtedly lead to anarchy; but our present societal
rules should be eliminated before we can have a Democracy of
Philosophers.